Yes, I sort of agree with this, I must say!
I love the idea of one-click "validate this and go to next page", but I
reckon it should be when one is viewing wikitext. Maybe it could just be
as simple as "save this and go to next"? Although, then one doesn't get
confirmation that one's edits are correct... hmmm.... I'm no help am I?
Of course, if visual editor is coming, then that's a whole other
thing... :-)
I always proofread with that DP font, so perhaps if that were set as
default for page NS viewing... but that's probably not a good idea...
-sam
On 11/08/15 17:18, ankry(a)mif.pg.gda.pl wrote:
If you wish to add the "Big Validate Button"
in a specific Wikisource, it
is your choice. But the Polish language Wikisource will definitely refuse
to use such a tool. So it should never become a general tool.
We have VERY BAD experience with new users making the final validation
process. Noticing an OCR error omited in previous stages is often a
problem for a user unexperienced in work with OCR-based texts. In general,
they just read both texts, do not compare them word-by-word so they often
cannot notice mistakes like: missing paragraph, missing line of text,
wrong word and also aften miss a typo (eg. missing letter).
Our OCR tetxs are full of OCR-specific "typos", like
m instead of in
rn instead of m
1 instead of l
l instead of 1
l instead of ł
ą instead of ę
i instead of !
, instead of .
. instead of ,
wrong capitalization
missing or extra diacritic marks
In most cases such "typos" are impossible to eliminate using
dictionary-based tests as both "words" (OCR-created and the correct one)
exist in the OCR dictionary.
Another disadvantage of directing new users to the validation process
(especially without even viewing the code) is that they might NEVER learn
how to format texts (or even fix broken formatting) as they might never
need to use it!
It does not matter whether it is low-level template-based formatting
process or using VE (however, it is likely that wrong formatting enetered
using VE might be difficult to fix while also using VE).
In plwikisource we prefer to direct new users to start work with simple
texts, when little formatting is required (eg. short stories, novels,
simple poetry) entering them (basing on pre-formatted OCR) or to do the
first Proofread stage (red -> yellow) than direct them to final
validation.
Maybe OCR in other languages is much better or you do not care for final
text quality - but it definitely should be a choice.
Ankry
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:14:20 +0200
Andrea Zanni wrote:
The Big Validate Button is a good idea,
but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow
and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait
for the new page, click edit, etc.
Aubrey
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the
> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's
> no
> error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer.
>
> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON
> <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
>> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>> First point is:
>>> is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw
>> code?
>>
>> Probably yes.
>> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to
>> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages
>> doesn't
>> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so
>> it
>> doesn't seems to be crucial to me.
>> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will
>> actually see the raw wikicode.
>>
>>> A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without
>> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0?
>>
>> Definitively yes.
>> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the
>> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It
>> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation
>> since
>> it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an
>> obvious
>> example here).
>>
>>> Alex
>> Cdlt, ~nicolas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikisource-l mailing list
>> Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l